Search form

The Complexity of ‘That's So Gay'

You wouldn’t say “that’s so jew” or “that’s so black” – that would be so racist – so you should also refrain from saying “that’s so gay." This is the end of the argument for teachers and equality activists. Yet educators find that when they reprimand young people for using this term, they often face an angry rebuttal from kids, who say, “I’m not homophobic, I’ve got gay friends.”

So what are we to make of this defence? The easy answer is to say that the denial of homophobia is a tokenistic rejection of what has become a socially unacceptable attitude. Yet to automatically assume homophobia in youth, without listening to their perspectives, is to pre-judge them. In my new book, The Declining Significance of Homophobia, where I spent a year researching what it means to be a guy in school today, I found that the default position for straight male youth is to be supportive of gay rights, inclusive of gay peers and critical of homophobia. And as the attitudes of these young men changed, so did the way they talked about homosexuality.

Many of my participants did not use the phrase "that’s so gay," but those who did insisted that it was not homophobic. Their argument rested on two key points. First, they pointed out that there were two meanings for the word gay : one meaning ‘rubbish’ and the other referring to sexual identity. For example, Alex said, “It isn’t meant homophobically. When I say ‘that’s so gay,’ I don’t mean homosexual.” Angered by the suggestion that some might perceive it as homophobic, Lewis was more forceful in response. “What?” he said, “So saying ‘it’s so gay that I got homework’ means that I think my homework is a guy and is attracted to other guys? That doesn’t make sense.” Zak said, “I say it all the time. But I don’t mean anything by it. I’ve got gay friends.”

Many adults who grew up in cultures of intense homophobia will find both parts of this argument to be lacking credibility. After all, when I was at school, “that’s so gay” was said by students who also used homophobic pejoratives and bullied students who were camp or feminine. And these young men certainly would not have had gay friends. Yet in today’s gay-friendly environment, students use language in new ways, with different meanings. The key issue is that words can have multiple meanings, and we distinguish between them based on the context of their use and the way in which they are spoken.

Consider the following scenario: You are walking along the street, when a friend urgently shouts “DUCK!” What do you do? I suggest that your first reaction is not to look for a bird waddling along the road going ‘quack quack’. No, rather, you will lower your head, pretty quickly. ‘Duck’ has two distinct meanings, and we accept we are able to interpret the meaning by the manner in which it is said. Why is gay so different?

One argument is that the difference lies in the psychological associations ‘gay’ has with a sexual identity and its history of homophobic oppression. This is a valid point, but the young people in my research did not see it this way. For them, ‘gay’ has two distinct meanings just like ‘duck’. Thus, I argue the difference in interpretation is because older generations may not be able to cognitively separate the two. Older generations have not learned to understand the use of the word in the same way; judging young people from an adult perspective, without considering their viewpoint. By listening to the voices of the young people in my study, I found they had a sophisticated understanding and use of language. It’s just that it’s different to our own perspective.

When it comes to understanding the meanings and effects of language, context is all-important. “That’s so gay” can be homophobic, if it is said with negative intent or within a homophobic environment. But when it is said in settings where sexual minorities are open, out and proud, and heterosexual men are friends with their openly gay peers, it takes on different meanings. In such a context, it is not homophobic. As openly gay student Eddie commented, “I don’t mind straight people saying ‘that’s so gay.’ I say it, so it would be hypocritical if I had an issue with it.”

Further supporting this dual meaning, I found that heterosexual and gay students bonded through use of the word gay. For example, openly gay student Greg was playing catch with Lewis and some other heterosexual friends. As Lewis threw the ball, it slipped out of his hand, travelling only a few metres. Greg shouted, “Lewis, you’re gayer than me!” Such forms of banter strengthened the students’ friendship, and also appeared to expunge the negativity from use of the word—consolidating the dual meaning of the word “gay.”

To be clear, I am not advocating for the use of the phrase “that’s so gay.” One of the problems with it is that older generations will hear homophobia even where none is intended. Indeed, some of the LGBT students I spoke to felt uncomfortable with the phrase at the same time as they argued it did not connote homophobia. In The Declining Significance of Homophobia, I develop a new model for understanding this changing use of language, which highlights how the intent, effect, and environment within which words are used are vitally important in determining whether homophobia is present or not. And when doing this, it is crucial we listen to young people’s perspectives. When someone says “that’s so gay,” we should also consider discussing with them why some people might find it offensive, the history of gay oppression and the value of empathy. By engaging with young people about this issue, we might even find that we learn something about their increasingly positive attitudes toward homosexuality.

I am the proud mother of a gay son. I've been arguing this point and many other "Politically incorrect" terms for years. It is all in the Context of how someone is using the word. Saying something like "I think it's gay that the teacher gave us homework" is an absolutely acceptable term in my view. People need to start looking at the context in which words are used and not what words are being said. Someone will always be offended in the terms being used, but really try and look at how it's being said before being offended. Just my opinion.

But I think the analysis is simplistic. Most words, especially ones that relate to gender and sexuality and identity have more than two meanings. It is a very 'binary' model and it doesn't ring true to me. I would like to see some transcripts from interviews with young people to see how they use 'gay' in context. Like discourse analysis this seems superficial.

Not really sure what you mean here. There is of course the old meaning of the word gay, as in happy, but this is not used by the young people. There were two meanings used in the settings.

The data is both interviews and participant observations, from over a year's worth of ethnographic research in three settings. I didn't use discourse analysis. The key point of my argument is that it is the context in which the word is used that determines the meaning.

My friends sometimes say something is 'high school gay' to make the differentiation and to be ironic. I only use 'that's so gay' when I see clearly homosexual behaviour. Its not saying its wrong, but that it is homosexual behaviour. My gay friends find it funny and I guess they know where I'm coming from when I say it.

BTW I'm female so I can be sensitive to slights that imply female is weak, over-sensitive or over-emotional.

I'm with you, M. There are some instances where using the phrase ironically can be OK and funny in the right setting. But the phrase was meant to equate gayness with stupidity or absurdity or insignificance. And it is just wrong. Even I, as a gay person, have the urge to use the phrase sometimes. There is psychological complexity in that, but not in a bunch of bros justifying their use of the phrase because that "have gay friends."

And you're right, it's like when people call a man a "pussy." They might just mean that person is weak, but that doesn't change the fact that the speaker is equating femininity with weakness.

Sure the word has two meanings that young people are smart enough to understand but doesn't the use of the word 'gay' to refer to something undesirable undermine the value of gay people in society, even if it is very subtle? A blending of the two meanings is obvious when the student mentioned said "you are gayer than me" denoting simultaneous meanings 'undesirable' (because he dropped the ball) and 'homosexual' (referring to himself).

The article seems to be saying that this connection is irrelevant but I would bet that most gay students are a little hurt whenever the phrase is said.

There are a couple of points here. The first is that to say the young people are 'smart enough' to recognise the differences of meaning is slightly misleading as I don't think it is a conscious thought process. That is, just like if I shout at you 'duck', you'll move your body rather than look for a bird, these youth distinguish meaning in a similar way. This is important in thinking about the unintended effects of such language. So, I agree with you that the phrase can have the negative effect you suggest, but it won't necessarily and I would suggest this is also dependent on the understandings of the two people talking (whether it is a long friendship, or whether they are strangers).

In my published research, I talk about a broader range of language. So, 'don't be gay' is undoubtedly worse than 'that's so gay'. And 'you are gayer than me' - well, in this instance it was said by an intelligent, politically active gay kid. He was playing on stereotypes of sexuality and subverting them to a degree. But of course, if this had been a straight guy who was homophobic, it would have been completely different.

In my book, I'm clear to argue that because we can't tell in advance the effects of using the phrase, I would prefer it if it isn't used. And I agree that it can consolidate the link between 'gay' and 'undesirable'. Yet to ascribe homophobia to people who say it is problematic and can shut down any discussion of homophobia and gay rights. Rather, we need to use the phrase as a learning opportunity. Talk to young people about why some people may find it offensive - the history of homophobia, the power of language, the importance of empathy.

Thanks for the reply. I see your point and agree that saying 'that's so gay' does not necessarily mean anything negative in itself. I'm not saying anyone is homophobic for using the term. I agree that the unintended effects are yet to be seen.

The issue I have here (as a gay woman, that works with teens) is that the word "gay" does not actually mean "rubbish" as you are suggesting. Sure, the word "gay" has more than one definition, but this is not one of them. Culturally and in our society, the word gay has come to mean rubbish, lesser than, stupid, weak, slow, feminine, lame, etc - all traits that have historically been associated with homosexuals. So yes, the word "gay" has come to now also mean all of these other negative things, but the root of this unofficial definition lies in homophobia and anti-gay speech. Understanding the roots of the words we use is important, and can explain why such a statement is hurtful.

I am not old, in fact I am fresh out of my teens myself, and I find it quite hurtful when someone uses a label that I associate with myself to describe something negatively. If over time our society had used the N word in a racist way and to bash black people, and then it had been adapted by teenagers to just mean anything that is poor, gang-related, and dirty, and yelled "You're being such a N-r" 10 times a day, one could also argue they had simply given this horrendous offensive word a "new definition".. but would we not want to educate them to understand where that word comes from, how much hate is associated with it, and that their "new definition" is not very "new" at all, and is incredibly inappropriate? Or should we just leave them to use the word, uneducated, and hurting others? I would certainly think that if any teenager was using the N word in that way, not many people would stand for it or argue against it being racist. Why is it different with the word "gay"? Gay people have been treated poorly and stereotyped as being weak and lame and all the things that this "new teen definition" of gay means. This is what makes it NOT OK.

If someone were to see a bunch of rainbow flags and say "that's so gay" this is fine, because you know what? That IS really gay! If someone calls another person "gay" for being sensitive or slow or not athletic, this is NOT OK because these are unacceptable stereotypes of gay people! These are not random traits that have never been associated with the LGBT community.

So no, this is not a new definition of the word gay that adults are just not able to understand from a youths perspective. This is a label that people associate with their IDENTITY and it has been morphed into a negative descriptor. Not cool!

This is so incredibly spot-on and articulated every concern I had with this article so well. I get what the author is trying to do, I really do. And I tend to think of myself as a pretty serene person, but I was feeling growing rage with each paragraph. ENOUGH, enough with the "DUCK" example, I just can't.

In the old days, gay meant happy or silly, way before the term was used to describe homosexuality. So saying that's so gay is not being a homophobe, it's been around for generations before gayness was accepted, so why should we change our way of speaking because gays take it to mean something that they made up?

Nobody is suggesting that you no longer use the word "gay" to refer to being "happy or silly." By all means, use this word for it's intended purpose and tell the word how gay you are (gay obviously meaning happy and silly here)! In no way is it being suggested that gay only be used when referring to homosexuality. What I was referring to above is the use of the word "gay" to mean something negative and disrespectful and that personifies many of the stereotypes applied to members of the LGBT community.

Here are some examples to clarify:

1) When someone says "Oh my god, look at him, what is he doing wearing that shirt? That's so gay!" they are likely not saying "Oh my god, look at him, what is doing wearing that shirt? That's so happy and silly!". They are actually saying something like "Oh my god, look at him, what is he doing wearing that shirt?? That's so feminine/ugly/flamboyant/not masculine/not in style/stupid". These terms are things that were used to stereotype homosexuals. Therefore, the use of the word refers to the homosexual use of the word gay, rather than the happy/silly use of the word gay.

2) when someone (coworkers I have had in the past, for example) say things like "What the hell is with this new filing system?! It is so gay!" They are likely not saying that the new filing system is happy and silly, nor does it make them feel happy or silly. They are suggesting the filing system is stupid/useless/annoying/something we would be better without. Are you seeing the point here?

In regards to gay people "making up" the definition of gay: shall we do some research here? The word gay absolutely has always meant happy, silly, lighthearted, etc. However, dating back to the 1630's the oxford english dictionary defined "gay" to also mean: "addicted to social pleasures and dissipations. Often euphemistically: Of loose and immoral life", and over decades and centuries this evolved to mean what it does today. So no, homosexuals did not invent this secondary definition of the word gay, and would certainly have preferred to not be labelled with a word that actually means immoral and promiscuous. This is likely why many homosexuals have decided to focus on the other meaning of the word gay, and have decided to live their lives in the most happy, lighthearted, and sometimes silly way possible (see: gay pride parades).. in order to not focus on the the horrible and offensive root definition of this label.

If you are going to say that the term "that's so gay" isn't homophobic because gay once meant "happy" or "cheerful", you are wrong.

From the article "How 'Gay' Came to Mean Homosexual"

The word “gay” seems to have its origins around the 12th century in England, derived from the Old French word ‘gai’, which in turn was probably derived from a Germanic word, though that isn’t completely known. The word’s original meaning meant something to the effect of “joyful”, “carefree”, “full of mirth”, or “bright and showy”.

However, around the early parts of the 17th century, the word began to be associated with immorality. By the mid 17th century, according to an Oxford dictionary definition at the time, the meaning of the word had changed to mean “addicted to pleasures and dissipations. Often euphemistically: Of loose and immoral life”. This is an extension of one of the original meanings of “carefree”, meaning more or less uninhibited.

Fast-forward to the 19th century and the word gay referred to a woman who was a prostitute and a gay man was someone who slept with a lot of women (ironically enough), often prostitutes. Also at this time, the phrase “gay it” meant to have sex.

The gay community took a term that had been used in a derogatory fashion and made it a term of pride and identity. Your phrase "that's so gay" is turning it back into a derogatory term.

No, I do not accept that "the context" changes the meaning. If in that same context, you would not say "That's so Jew" or "That's so Black" or "That's so Muslim" then do not say "That's so Gay". I would argue that we were raised in a homophobic society and until there is much greater change, we are all still fighting internalized homophobia.

I was waiting for a bus by a school that I used to work at (mostly white, traditional working-class).

Four boys (about 15/16) were standing having an animated conversation. On of the boys turned to another and said "that's gay." The second boy turned to him and replied 'you shouldn't say that - you were kissing that bloke at the club last weekend." The first boy then replied "well, you can't tell me not to use it as I am gay." All four of them then proceeded to have a heated discussion of for whom, where and when the use of the word was acceptable.

I'm not dismissing the impact of homophobic language, but it struck me that as a teacher I could never imagine having had the same conversation with the same boys in school. Zero-tolerance language shuts down our ability to engage with teenagers on sensitive issues because, even if we try, they'll police what they say in our presence (I can't imagine that the boys would have continued with their conversation if I had still been teaching at the school).

For me, gay refers to homosexual and happy. Since when has it meant things like rubbish? Or is that only an alternate meaning in some countries where English is the first language? English is my second language, so of course I'm not aware of all the meanings behind all words (I don't even know everything about my first language). But to me, gay doesn't mean rubbish.

Also, I'm lesbian/gay, and I use "that's so gay", but I mean it in a positive way. Like...something that has homosexual and/or homoerotic undertones that makes me happy can by me be called "so gay".

I get that some use it in a negative way, but if you're in a conversation you can (most of the time) pick out if it was intended to be negative or positive pretty easily.

In the US, Canada and the UK, the word "gay" has a very storied social history. Its original textbook meaning was indeed "happy" or "carefree" and this definition, regardless how outdated, remains in the dictionaries.

This word was used by homophobes to bash homosexuals, and it was proudly flown as a banner by homosexuals marching to raise awareness and support for their cause to exist without being bashed by the social norm of homophobia. In a positive context, it can mean 'fabulous' or 'loving' or 'cheerful' or just denote general acceptance. In a negative context, it can mean 'incompetent' or 'stupid' or 'ridiculous' or just denote general disapproval.

The word 'gay', like many other adjectives in the English language, morphs in exact meaning depending on the speaker's social circles, the situational context and inflection. Other highly-morphable words include 'nice' and 'cool'.

Taking many of the things people say out of context is dangerous no matter what language they speak, because the exact words we say are often less meaningful than the speaker's situation, social circumstance and intended audience.

The LGBT community was on the pointy end of the word 'gay' when it was wielded as a weapon of hate, and they beat it down and turned it harmless by embracing it. Now it seems they're taking offense to the younger generation's use of a word they rendered inert ... and that's what this debate is about: one generation getting grumpy over the next generation's affectations and style.

What's really offensive is the ad campaign where young women are correcting teen girls on their choice of phrasology. These commercials point out, "What if who you are is used as an insult?" and telling us to "knock it off." As though the entire national audience are children who need to be scolded by fashionistas who probably think the word "your" only has two letters.

I'm a child of the 80s, and we used to use more social identities than this as intentional insults, jabs or compliments, depending on context. Context is everything. If one kid says to another, "You're such a jock," is it an insult or a compliment? If they're both on the football team, it's probably a compliment, but if they're video game geeks, it's probably an ironic jab, and if they're stoner dropouts, then it's likely an insult.

Consider the word "nice." Depending on who's saying it, how it's said, and the situational context, this word can be its own antonym. In high school, I had a friend whose kneejerk comment to everything was "Nice." You had to actually be there and see what he was referring to and how he said it to know what exactly he meant.

How is this any different than the word "gay"? This word existed for centuries without being referential to homosexuals, but in the early 1900s, it and a dozen other monickers got used as homophobia started becoming a social trend. In the 80s, there were perhaps a dozen words that meant homosexual, but only if a homophobe was saying it in a negative way. As homophobia declined, almost all of these words faded from use, but "gay" was clung to ... by the homosexuals themselves.

Now, it seems that the LGBT community has nothing else to complain about, so they're trying to start some campaign that makes "gay" seem somehow hurtful when it never was, except when used in context by somebody intentionally trying to be hurtful. If this isn't put in check, the word "gay" will be called "the g-word" by the media and we'll see lawsuits over choice of words, with crying homosexuals getting in the camera proclaiming, "That's OUR word, you don't get to use it!" Sounds familiar somehow ...

So in response to the LGBT community telling people to "knock it off" when using langauge that predates their movement that they themselves have clung to ... I can only ask if they'd prefer us to say "that's so fairy" or "that's so ass-pirate" or "that's so carpet-muncher" because that's not what we mean when we say it.

What we really mean by "that's so gay" is "oh how nice." Yeah, it's just like that. You have to be there, see the context, hear the inflection, and understand the situation before you can even HOPE to comprehend what the speaker actually means.

The LGBT community funding these ads fails to understand that there are complexities to human interaction, and that it's not all about them. THEY are the ones who should knock it off.

All I can say is wow. You're the scariest kind of ignorant because you think you know better. I'm so glad the gay community has you to decide what was actually hurtful to them and what was not. And all of your insults show your underlying views. You're completely out of touch. I hope you are not a mental health professional.

call them should really,low-priced perfect religion available for purchase, these people are the form augment that you will not ever get larger aside, that you'll clothes higher than your main trusty faded away denim slacks, And which the feet may well adore you for.

additional handing them out cen you spend connected to our business expansion keep away from 2007 and frequent one's harmful debt worries wildlife reserve due to a higher credit scores can be in a present economic environment and higher marketing and advertising adjustable cost the increase hot in sales and three retailers possess cracked not through the over full third quarter 2007,

I understand that you're not justifying or advocating for the use of the phrase "That's so gay," - merely identifying intention behind the use and the difference that may make. However, I really think you are missing the mark here. Intention makes no difference in the use of the phrase, neither does generation. The fact of the matter is that "gay" has no historical or official definition as a descriptor for that which is stupid or absurd. When it came into use, the INTENTION was to equate gayness with stupid or ridiculous and therefore anything stupid or ridiculous can be called "gay." Outside of this use, "gay" does not, has never, and should never mean "stupid" or "ridiculous" or anything other than "homosexual" or "happy." People using the phrase - regardless of their intention, their stances on homosexuality, or their number of homosexual friends - are MISUSING the word, and equating "gayness" with being stupid, small, absurd, or insignificant. Equating use of the word "duck" with use of the word "gay" is a false equivalence, as "duck" simply as two meanings and neither of them dehumanizes or marginalizes a human (or even animal) being. Personally, when I hear my brother or friends say "that's so gay," I feel belittled, despite knowing how much they love me. Maybe other gay people simply do not feel that way, or maybe their subconscious overlooks it because the gay man's longing for acceptance is so much greater than a need to nitpick their heterosexual peers' word choice. There is psychological complexity in THAT. That is what this article should be about. I am surprised this 'analysis' was even posted in Psychology Today, as there seems to be no psychological investigation going on here.